HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 07/16/2002 - CONSIDERATION OF THE APPEAL OF THE MAY 9, 2002, DE AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ITEM NUMBER: 34
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL DATE: July 16, 2002FROM:
Peter Barnes
SUBJECT :
Consideration of the Appeal of the May 9, 2002, Decision of the Zoning Board of Appeals
Denying the 907 Mathews Street Lot Area Variance Request (ZBA Appeal #2384).
RECOMMENDATION:
Council should consider the appeal based upon the record and relevant provisions of the Land
Use Code, City Code and Charter, and after consideration uphold, overturn, or modify the
Board's decision.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
On May 9, 2002, the Zoning Board of Appeals denied a variance request to reduce the required
lot area from 10,000 square feet to 8,288 square feet in order to allow the construction of a new
800 square foot carriage house dwelling on the rear portion of the lot at 907 Mathews Street.
The property is zoned NCM—Neighborhood Conservation Medium Density.
On June 5, 2002, an Amended Notice of Appeal was received by the City Clerk's office
regarding the decision of the Zoning Board of Appeals. In the Amended Notice of Appeal, from
the Appellants Mikal Torgerson and Derrick Vandersluys, it is alleged that the Zoning Board of
Appeals failed to properly interpret and apply the relevant provisions of the Code because they
allege that the decision was based on extraneous standards.
The attached documents include:
* Amended Notice of Appeal, received June 5, 2002, which supercedes the original Notice
of Appeal.
* City Staff response to the appeal.
* Staff Report, with recommendation and attached plans, to the Zoning Board of Appeals
for the public hearing.
* Minutes of the Meeting before the Zoning Board of Appeals, held May 9, 2002,
including the Board's Findings, Conclusions and Decision.
The procedures for deciding appeals are described in Chapter 2, Article 11, Division 3 of the City
Code.
May 31, 2002 n E C E 0 W D
I�Jn��f Jli;I 2002
Wanda Krajicek CITY CLER!( Arth,iah.GC
City Hall West
300 West Laporte Ave.
Fort Collins, CO 80521
Dear Ms. Krajiecek:
I am writing on behalf of my client Derrick Vandersluys to request an
appeal of the decision of the Zoning Board of Appeals # 2384. Derrick is
the owner of a property at 907 Mathews, which is the subject of this
appeal. He resides at 1806 Hull Street, Fort Collins, CO 80526. His
phone number is 970-266-1162. 1 will be acting as his representative, so
as such, we would appreciate any correspondence regarding this be sent
to Mikal Torgerson, 223 North College Avenue, Fort Collins, CO 80524
This appeal was filed to request a variance to 4.7(d)(1) which is the
minimum lot size requirement for a detached dwelling in the NCM zone
district.
As required by the code, our application argued that the granting of this
variance would not be detrimental to the public good or impair the intent or
purpose of the Land Use Code, and that the proposal as submitted will
promote the general purpose of the standard for which the variance is
requested equally well or better than would a proposal which complies
with the standard for which the variance is requested.
A majority of the members of zoning board of appeals board did in their
discussions agree that our proposed carriage house did "preserve the
character of this area" better than would a compliant plan le. if the single
family house in the front were converted into a fourplex which is allowed
under the code. This majority sentiment would have satisfied half of the
requirements to grant the modification. The other determination that
would have had to have been made in order to grant the variance was
that our proposal was not determined to be detrimental to the public good.
The discussion of the Zoning Board of Appeals on Thursday May 09`" was
primarily focused on the "equal or better than" portion of this case, with
little discussion as to whether it was detrimental to the public good. The
discussion unfortunately focused more on the precedence that the
granting of this modification might set for future variances. There was
also some discussion from board members who felt that the granting of
this variance would be in effect "policy setting" which should be outside
their purview.
In the comments preceding the vote, board members offered discussion
as to why they would not be supporting the variance. These reasons 223 North College
varied from concern about the lot size as it related to the old Land Use Fort Collim,(080524
970.416.7431
1.888.416.7431
Fax:970.416.7435
Email:mikol@mdhifa.rom
hHp://w archifexxom
cit% Cler1,
I'n e
Development System, to the concern about setting precedence, and
"opening the floodgates" to these kinds of variances. There was
extensive discussion about council action regarding alley houses in the
past, with a detailed staff presentation on the history of alley houses. This
spawned other concerns that the granting of this variance, would
essentially undermine the policy set by council regarding alley houses. It
was even suggested during the hearing by the chairman of the board, that
we might want to appeal this case to council who would be a more
appropriate policy making body to consider the question. We feel that
since decisions were based on these extraneous standards, and not those
required in the land use code, that relevant laws were not properly
interpreted and applied. The code is clear that the only findings that the
board should base their decision on is that the granting of this variance
would not be detrimental to the public good or impair the intent or purpose
of the Land Use Code, and that the proposal as submitted will promote
the general purpose of the standard for which the variance is requested
equally well or better than would a proposal which complies with the
standard for which the variance is requested.
We, therefore, respectfully request that we be given the opportunity to
present our appeal to the Fort Collins City Council.
Sincerely,
0
Mikal S. Torgerson �•
Qcw.
Derrick Vandersluys
Community Planning and Environmental Services
Building and Zoning Department
City of Fort Collins
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and Members of City Council
FROM: Peter Barnes, Zoning Administrator /
THRU: John Fischbach, City ManageA
Greg Byrne, Director C.P.E.S.
DATE: June 19, 2002
RE: Staff Response to 907 Mathews Street Zoning Board of Appeals
Decision —Appeal to City Council
The purpose of this memorandum is to respond to an appeal regarding the May 9, 2002
• decision of the Zoning Board of Appeals to deny the 907 Mathews Street lot area variance
request (ZBA Appeal #2384).
Section 2-48(b) of the City Code states:
"Except for appeals by members of the City Council, for which no grounds need be stated,
the permissible grounds for appeal shall be limited to allegations that the board or
commission committed one or more of the following errors:
(1) Failure to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Code and
Charter;
(2) Failure to conduct a fair hearing in that:
a. The board, commission or other decision maker exceeded its authority
or jurisdiction as contained in the Code and Charter;
b. The board, commission or other decision maker substantially ignored
its previously established rules of procedure;
C. The board, commission or other decision maker considered evidence
relevant to its findings which was substantially false or grossly
1
281 North College Avenue • P.O. Box 580 • Fort Collins,CO 80522-0580 • (970) 221-6760 • FAX(970) 224-6134
misleading; or
d. The board, commission or other decision maker improperly failed to
receive all relevant evidence offered by the appellant."
The Appeal:
Appellants Mikal Torgerson Derrick Vandersluys
223 North College Avenue 1806 Hull Street
Fort Collins, CO. 80524 Fort Collins, CO 80526
Grounds for Appeal:
In the Appellant's written notice of appeal of the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) decision
to deny the 907 Mathews Street lot area variance request, the following allegation was
cited:
1. Relevant laws were not properly interpreted and applied because extraneous
standards were improperly considered.
Additional details of the Grounds for Appeal were offered (below).
Note: courier Bold Text represents excerpts from the appeal document.
1. The Board did not adequately consider whether the request was detrimental to the
public good.
The other determination that would have had to have been made in
order to grant the variance was that our proposal was not
detrimental to the public good. The discussion of the Zoning
Board of Appeals on Thursday May 09°h was primarily focused on
the "equal to or better than" portion of this case, with little
discussion as to whether it was detrimental to the public good.
Staff Response:
The Appellants correctly state that the Board did not spend much time discussing
whether or not the proposal was detrimental to the public good. However, when the
motion was made to deny the appeal, boardmembers discussed whether or not it was
necessary to include a finding relevant to the issue of detriment in the motion. The
motion-maker did not believe that it was necessary and asked staff for input regarding
the matter. The Deputy City Attorney explained that the Board is only required to make
2
a finding regarding the question of"no detriment' in order to approve a variance. Since
the motion on the table was to deny the variance, no further discussion or finding was
necessary with regard to whether the proposal was detrimental or not detrimental. The
motion-maker then made it clear that the issue of detriment was not part of his motion
to deny the variance. The motion was then seconded. Thus, staff contends that the
standard of public detriment was properly interpreted and applied even though it was
only discussed briefly.
2. Decisions were based on extraneous standards.
The discussion unfortunately focused more on the precedence that
the granting of this modification might set for future variances.
There was also some discussion from board members who felt that the
granting of this variance would be in effect "policy setting" which
should be outside their purview.
In the comments preceding the vote, board members offered
discussion as to why they would not be supporting the variance.
These reasons varied from concern about the lot size as it related
to the old Land Use Development System, to the concern about
setting a precedence, and "opening the floodgates" to these kinds
of variances. There was extensive discussion about council action
regarding alley houses in the past, with detailed staff
presentation on the history of alley houses. This spawned other
concerns that the granting of this variance, would essentially
undermine the policy set by council regarding alley houses . ... We
feel that since decisions were based on these extraneous standards,
and not those required in the Land Use Code, that relevant laws
were not properly interpreted and applied. The code is clear that
the only findings that the board should base their decision on is
that the granting of this variance would not be detrimental to the
public good or impair the intent or purpose of the Land Use Code,
and that the proposal as submitted will promote the general purpose
of the standard for which the variance is requested equally well or
better than would a proposal which complies with the standard for
which the variance is requested.
Staff Response:
The charge of the Zoning Board of Appeals in this case is to determine that the purpose
of the standard for which the variance is requested will be promoted by the submitted
3
proposal equally well or better than would a proposal that complies with the standard.
Therefore, in order for the Board to make such a determination, it is necessary that they
understand the purpose of the standard. In this particular case the standard is found in
Section 4.7(D)(1), and it requires that a minimum of 5,000 square feet of lot area be
provided for each single-family dwelling that is located on a lot in the NCM zone. With
regards to 907 Mathews Street, 5,000 square feet of lot area is required for the existing
house and an additional 5,000 square feet of lot area is required for the proposed house.
Thus the standard in the Code requires a total of 10,000 square feet of lot area in order to
construct an additional home at the rear of the lot. Since the 10,000 square foot standard
was the direct result of an emergency ordinance and a subsequent 3 year public outreach
effort, staff believed that it was necessary to provide the Board with a detailed presentation
(summarized in the following paragraph) on the history of the standard in order for them
to understand the purpose of the standard.
The emergency ordinance was adopted in December 1993 in response to City Council's
concern over the number of "alley houses" that were being constructed in the older
Eastside and Westside neighborhoods. The ordinance repealed the original 4,500 square
foot per building lot area requirement and replaced it with an "interim" lot area requirement
of 5,500 square feet per building. This increase effectively eliminated the possibility of new
.'alley house" construction. The emergency ordinance directed that the 5,500 square foot
requirement stay in place until City staff, in conjunction with a consultant and residents of
the affected neighborhoods, had an opportunity to review the issue and prepare an
ordinance with appropriate recommendations within one year. The one-year time frame
was extended by City Council several times due to the neighborhood controversy that
surfaced with every proposed ordinance. Finally, three years later, the Council adopted
the new 5000 square lot area regulation in 1996. At the time the Council approved the new
standard, the City was still using the Land Development Guidance System (LDGS) as the
basic zoning code. The LDGS allowed any standard to be varied by means of a PUD,
without having to prove a hardship. City Council was so concerned about ensuring that the
5,000 square foot lot area requirement was not "abused" by variances through the PUD
process, that they took the unusual step of amending the 1996 ordinance between 15` and
2nd reading. The amendment added wording to the NCL, NCM, and NCB zones that
expressly prohibited the varying of any standards by means of a PUD. Staff contends,
and recommended to the Zoning Board of Appeals, that given the origin of the standard
in question, any variance from the 5,000 square foot lot area standard must be carefully
examined to ensure that the purpose of the standard is met. Since the purpose of the
standard can be directly traced to City Council's policy as stated in the 1993 emergency
ordinance and the resulting 1996 ordinance, it was appropriate for the Zoning Board of
Appeals to be concerned about changing that very clear policy by granting a variance.
Staff also expressed concern to the Board that if this particular variance were granted, it
would be hard to deny similar variance requests for alley homes at the rear of lots. Thus,
proliferation of alley houses could begin to occur without re-opening the process and
debate that occurred in the mid-1990's. There was discussion at the May 9ch hearing
4
• about the ability to convert the existing home on the lot into a duplex, triplex, or fourplex
without the need for a variance since the lot was of adequate size to accommodate such
use. In light of this, the Board discussed whether or not the placement of an additional
home at the back of the lot, resulting in a density of only 2 dwelling units on the property,
was any worse than converting the existing home to a duplex, triplex, or fourplex. Staff
explained to the Board that almost every existing home on a lot in the NCM zone could be
converted in that manner without a variance, and if the 907 Mathews appeal was granted,
then every property owner could petition for a similar variance, claiming that building an
alley house is preferable to converting the existing home to something else. However,
when City Council amended the Code in 1996, they understood that the existing homes
could be converted, and they did not have a problem with both a multi-family on the front
and an alley house in the rear as long as the lot was of a sufficient size. What was of
concern to Council at that time was not the potential for conversions of existing homes, but
of the proliferation of new alley houses. This concern manifested itself in regulations that
significantly limited the number of new alley houses that would be allowed based on a lot
area formula. Therefore, the Zoning Board rightly discussed the issue of precedence with
regards to allowing alley houses based on the potential for conversions. Since limiting
alley housing was the intent of the 1996 ordinance and is the purpose of the existing
standard, it really doesn't matter what use is on the front of the lot.
Conclusions:
. Staff contends that the Zoning Board of Appeals properly applied and interpreted
relevant laws.
1. The standards established in 1996 are not extraneous, but are relevant with regards
to understanding the origin and purpose of the 5,000 square foot lot area
requirement. Even though the NCM zone lot area requirement was established prior
to the adoption of the Land Use Code, the purpose of the standard to limit the
construction of alley houses is the same today as it was in 1996. In fact, when the
Land Use Code was adopted, the City Council did not make changes to any of the
NCM regulations. The NCM regulations were simply "rolled over" into the new Land
Use Code. Therefore, consideration by the Zoning Board of Appeals of prior
ordinances and regulations was relevant to the decision making process regarding
907 Mathews Street in order to determine if the proposal would promote the
purpose of the standard.
2. It was proper for the Board to be concerned about precedence since the granting of
this variance could result in alley houses on almost all lots in the NCM zone simply
by a property owner stating that having 2 separate houses is no worse than having
one duplex, triplex, or fourplex. Such a ruling would undermine the purpose of the
standard to limit the construction of alley houses, and therefore consideration of
precedence was relevant in order to ensure that the purpose of the standard was
not compromised.
. 5
3. It was relevant for the Board to understand that City Council established policy to
limit the construction of alley houses when the Code was amended in 1996, and that
the Zoning Board of Appeals was not the appropriate policy making body to approve
a variance that could result in changing an existing policy.
6
STAFF REPORT PRESENTED TO ZBA MAY 99 2002
Address: 907 Mathews Street
Petitioner: Mika] Torgerson
Zone: NCM
Section: 4.7(D)(1)
Back round:
The variance would reduce the required lot area from 10,000 square feet to 8,288 square feet in
order to allow the construction of a new 800 square foot carriage house dwelling on the rear
portion of the lot. The lower level of the proposed building will be a two-car garage, and the
upper level will be a one-bedroom dwelling unit.
Petitioner's Statement of Hardship:
Please see attached Petitioner's Letter B.
Staff Comments:
This is a self-imposed hardship since the applicant is merely wanting to build a house without the
required lot area. Therefore, in order to approve a variance, the Board must determine that "the
proposal as submitted will promote the general purpose of the standard for which the variance is
requested equally well or better than would a proposal which complies with the standard for
which the variance is requested". In this case, the standard under consideration, a 10,000 square
foot lot area requirement (5000 square feet per building), came about as a result of an emergency
ordinance that was passed by the City Council in 1993. That ordinance was adopted in response
to City Council's concern over the number of "alley houses" that were being constructed in the
older Eastside and Westside neighborhoods. The emergency ordinance repealled the original
4,500 square feet per building lot area requirement and replaced it with an "interim" lot area
requirement of 5,500 square feet per building. This increase effectively eliminated the
possibility of new "alley house" construction. The emergency ordinance directed that the 5,500
square feet requirement stay in place until City staff, in conjunction with residents of the affected
neighborhoods, had an opportunity to review the issue and prepare an ordinance with appropriate
recommendations within one year. The one-year time-frame was extended by City Council
several times due to the neighborhood controversy that surfaced with every proposed ordinance.
Finally, three years later, the Council adopted the new 5000 square feet lot area regulation in
1996.
At the time the Council approved the new standard, the City was still using the Land
Development Guidance System (LDGS) as the basic zoning code. The LDGS allowed any
standard to be varied by means of a PUD, without having to prove a hardship. City Council was
so concerned about ensuring that the 5000 square foot lot area requirement was not "abused" by
variances through the PUD process, that they took the very unusual step of amending the 1996
ordinance between 1st and 2nd reading. The amendment added wording to the NCL, NCM and
NCB zones that expressly prohibited the varying of any standards by means of a PUD. 'Thus,
any variance request from the 5000 square foot lot area standard must be carefully examined to
ensure that the purpose of the standard is met equally well or better than a plan that complies
with the standard.
Prior to 2001, the ZBA could only grant variances based on a hardship. The ZBA granted no lot
area reduction variances for alley homes between 1996 and 2001 because those requests were
always viewed as self-imposed. However, the Code was amended in 2001 to allow the ZBA to
grant "equal to or better than" variances. With that expanded authority, the Board did grant two
variances in 2001 to the lot area standard. One was for a new home at the rear of a comer lot.
The Board found that the overall purpose of the standard is to limit the density and number of
alley houses, thereby minimizing the impact of alley homes on an alley and on the existing
infrastructure, character and density of the neighborhood. The Board determined that the corner
lot situation accomplished meeting the standard in part because: (1) the placement of the rear
dwelling oriented to, and fronted on the street along the side of the lot, thereby creating no
additional alley traffic or change to existing traffic patterns (2) the parking for the new dwelling
came off of the side street, rather than the alley and (3) the design protected the established
character of the neighborhood which consisted of homes fronting on streets and of other homes
having been constructed on the rear portion of the other comer lots. The other lot area variance
approved in 2001 was to reduce the lot area requirement essentially from 20,000 square feet to
19,000 square feet in order to allow a total of four single family homes (two existing, older
homes to remain, and two new homes to be constructed). In this case, the applicant submitted a
development proposal for a large duplex for which no variance was required since the lot area
was sufficient to allow one new duplex. The neighbors objected to the proposed duplex, and
preferred that the two new dwelling units take the form of two small single family homes
instead. Since the applicant had already submitted a plan that complied with the Code, the Board
found that two small single family homes met the standard better than would a duplex because
the proposed homes: (1) did not increase the density beyond what would occur with the
permitted duplex (2) did not increase the impact to the alley beyond what would have occurred
with the permitted duplex and (3) the proposed "alley houses" would preserve the historic
attributes of the nearby properties and would protect the special character of the neighborhood
better than would a duplex.
The particular request now before the Board is different than the previous two in that this is not a
comer lot fronting on two streets, and no dwelling unit of any kind can be built without a
variance (whereas the second one described above allowed a duplex to be constructed in the rear
without a variance). Staff has some concern that if the Board grants this variance, it will be hard
to deny similar variance requests for alley homes at the rear of lots that are interior lots. Thus,
"alley creep" could begin to occur again just as it did in the 1990's. Such a phenomenon should
not be allowed to occur without re-opening the process and debate that occurred in the mid-
1990's. Therefore, if the Board is inclined to grant this variance, very specific findings need to
be made with regards to how this plan promotes the standard equally well or better than would a
plan that complies with the standard.
2
PGf;feoner'' 1e� ♦o a0q A*, �
Za�F For flay a, ��
April 23, 2002 Aw,,r %
•
Peter Barnes
City of Fort Collins
281 North College thi ,,
Fort Collins, CO 80522
Dear Mr Barnes:
I am writing on behalf of my client Derrick Vandersluys to request a
variance for Division 4.7 (D)(1) of the land use code which reads:
Density/Intensity of Development. Minimum lot area shall be the
equivalent of two (2) times the total floor area of the building(s), but not
less than the following: five thousand (5,000) square feet for a
single-family or two-family dwelling and six thousand (6,000) square feet
for all other uses. For the purposes of this subsection, "total floor area"
shall mean the total gross floor area of all principal buildings as measured
along the outside walls of such buildings, including each finished or
unfinished floor level, plus the total gross floor area of the ground floor of
any accessory building larger than one hundred twenty (120) square feet,
plus that portion of the floor area of any second story having a ceiling
height of at least eight (8) feet located within any such accessory building
located on the lot. (Open balconies and basements shall not be counted
as floor area).
In my clients case, the five thousand square feet of lot area per dwelling
. unit would apply. The property in question has 8,288 square feet of lot
area. We are requesting a variance because we believe that the granting
of this variance would not be detrimental to the public good or impair the
intent or purpose of the Land Use Code, and that the proposal as
submitted will promote the general purpose of the standard for which the
variance is requested equally well or better than would a proposal which
complies with the standard for which the variance is requested.
The Purpose statement for the Neighborhood Conservation, Medium
Density District reads; intended to preserve the character of areas that
have a predominance of developed single-family and low- to
medium-density multi-family housing and have been given this
designation in accordance with an adopted subarea plan.
This site falls within the East Side Neighborhood Plan (subarea plan).
The site in question was designated as multi-family on the Existing Land
Use survey included in this plan. It was suggested as Neighborhood
Preservation District zoning by the East Side Neighborhood Plan. The NP
zone district also allowed multi-family. It is our belief that the granting of
this variance would not be detrimental to the public good, on the contrary,
since we are proposing an 800 square foot designated affordable housing
unit on the back of this property we believe that this use would
substantially address the following important community needs defined in
City Plan Principles and Policies:
City Plan Principles and Policies Housing
PRINCIPLE HSG-1: A variety of housing types and densities will be
available throughout the urban area for all income levels. 223 Norlh college
Forl Collin,CO 80524
97DA16.7431
Policy HSG-1.2 Housing Supply. The City will encourage public and private, 1.8B8.416.74
31
For 110.416.1435
Email:mikal@orchifex.com
Hfp://w archilex.com
for-profit and non-profit sectors to take actions to develop and maintain an
adequate supply of single- and multiple -family housing, including mobile homes
and manufactured housing, that is proportionately balanced to the wages of our
labor force.
Policy HSG-1.3 Accessory Housing Units. The City will recognize accessory
housing units as a viable form of additional, and possibly affordable housing,
and will develop special permit procedures, criteria, and restrictions governing
their existence that are designed to facilitate their development while protecting
existing residential neighborhood character.
Policy HSG-1.4 Land for Residential development. The City will permit
residential development in all neighborhoods and districts in order to maximize
the potential land available for development of housing and thereby positively
influence housing affordability.
Policy HSG-1.5 Special Needs Housing. The housing needs of all special
populations within the community should be met. Residential-car facilities,
shelters, group homes, elderly housing, and low-income housing should be
dispersed throughout the Fort Collins urban area and the region.
PRINCIPLE HSG-2: The City will encourage the creation and
expansion of affordable housing opportunities and preservation of
existing housing stock.
Policy HSG-2.2 Incentives. The City will support and encourage the private
development of affordable housing by offering incentives and reducing local
government barriers to the construction of additional units.
Policy HSG-2.5 distribution of Affordable Housing. The City will encourage a
community-wide distribution of affordable housing in all neighborhoods to
promote diverse neighborhoods.
We also contend that this variance if granted would not impair the intent
or purpose of the Land Use Code, and that the proposal as submitted will
promote the general purpose of the standard for which the variance is
requested equally well or better than would a proposal which complies
with the standard for which the variance is requested.
We believe that our proposal is compatible not only with the zoning
recommendation recommended in the East Side Neighbor hood plan (the
adopted subarea plan for this area), but that it would also preserve the
character of this area which has a low-to medium-density single and
multi-family housing mix. The architecture of the proposed carriage house
draws heavily from the existing historic architecture of the neighborhood,
as is the massing and proportioning.
We would also like the Zoning Board of Appeals to consider that the
existing residence is a corner lot and that the proposed carriage house
would also be on an alley corner. We feel that this would also mitigate
any impact that might result from our proposal.
Sincerely, /
Mikal S. Torgerson
rtkt
..rx�o��r,ro SbT tl o ,�� '�`,,���)1�S >',b � '_ �1 :. j��j<•yr � < ov)'r ,-.
f1A" W ASP W
SWWAZS TTPIC.AL - w
-Tr T Li L 144 li ILII I'
WA I-MM-
jiLf;�,U ,ilJ J.l
U 1J, ll
A� i�
-V+x�f �l I• �.~111 i ly.),' ice!.
Y )j1 l
i l lI�'J-. �I II ,' Ij I II
TY d ULL
if
MAU WWIIT
--
y J
�III I — I t I I 11 IL ll f4�— .Y DPEt!RAY W
n
EAL ttAK 4.opmr
'.
D@ BELLY BAUDL'-'� I - ' 111 NAIE IEWAT e
wsroi-rtaac LAP srolr� — -_ -- _ -
MAX A'WV CAL — -- - -- --
- -- _ nxs�EnaooR
Jtb Co ER TR TYPICAL
MlE 1EGNL
I
I
IA HIME RIGHT ELEVATION
•RF - aA •A•A5F T i
' 9MwiLE9 TYPICAL 1 4+i ! � ..
I
TWROI-PLANC 9HPGI.E9 t 4 T L IL
tlmA �'. ! I I I 1 1LJ
u.l_ILI ,, i I IiI II4, j(111 �I wILI �T� l l��� LI li
1Y ! Il jlll 1 II I ! ! �L 1l-� lr 11.-Ll V
µsrml-PLNK LM svm 1 '' 1! I ',I ,1 r Il L 1 L11 71� l l p 111
T1Ax 4•WAV TYPICAL t
I �I I II III �If l l Ll ILI.IlI,� ILA-... � I I xll�l I11'll1:;-
L
1
T I 1-tll j l I Ly. I*• I t rr (}}' �J_7�I - L i•,l 1 I .1 �',
om colaER TRl1 TrPeAL —
I
-
DECKfEiER TO
STRICNRAL I t o ZI IWllI'1i17!- J - - f rl 1 1 !i•
' JI 11 LL l l _ LILL1111 �;
xr LPFN RAIL uu I L ITI-.J-:1111111r tLILw 11 - _ -r I� LTLi��-- 'i ce::-,i
nAx J•o.'EeuRG
FUIE Few u
6x6 COLVN.S • _ � _ "�
FI TO STTAICNRAL - _ -
1•SNOSTOE CAP F ygl�T�y
9
_ RATE iEW
aLTMD STONE -- _ _ _ I
ENLtEF£D D0.V'NS
14
=r -
rwi*m wod
SOUSE LOT ELEVATION
wte vr.r•�
• . U. 'O.OHMdLT
/ SN1YiE!iYPICN.
HNIDI-F'LOMC SNIGLES
iTPIOAL
4Y4 OUT Y R
-. / ITFMCAL
"Wt-mA LOP SIDED
YIP/.4'REY£OL TTFY .
CQdER iRY'I iTPICOL
FLOIE HE'GHi
\ 41'OFEN ROIL YY
IX'10ELLY BOND
MAIE N WT _ • 6Y6 COLU'W
REFER TO 51RlOAI
4'S STC CM
MINED FLOOR_m
yw
B.1tiERED COLItNS
PL4/E WWT
ua _
FHI D FLOOR
\4Y4 WOOD GOL"
REFER TO 9TR1 1D
MUNI-
CLASS'A'A9PNAL1
SHRCiES lTP1Oµ � '
LU.RDI-ftANC SNNGLED
nPICAL
wu
T WiRYf#R
TPIOAL
NARDI FLNX LOP 9DOYi � .. .. .
ItAX< WAAL DPC
' IXb COfdffR 1RH nfrcaL� RAiE NEYNi �
:FEN RAIL uN _
ElL1 i MAX WE e
_UYlS - L— � I NAIm
O 61RC - - n I I HAx.
1 FMISNEG FLOOR
PLATE IEIGNf T
O SLQE _-
L CO UNS
LL
INN",
iIN194�L ROOK
`1 Pp/���L�NA(�'� q❑� (p} ppp ppp��� \p\gyp} ((}�����9�p� gyp} �p}p�9p�pq I11l�I�py��
Q(.�W�Y�`,YO�p111�6 Md6 BYOVU`J� LS�6 VIWp�`V�IIU FADED OVEFIEAD GARKf DOOR -
=F
36•HAC RAIL a AXE R TO
MAX E• NEYa - It-00.1It1
REff i0 plF$),,.11X$AL
b
IO iE r� RI5ER5
m
+- s7-. _. .. � PAIR I6E�
I AF
E]'OPEN RAIL
MAX
.. A6oy=l el
A_A A-A
ml I o i A2 A2
um QW
ER TO S C RKA, 6X6 COLI1'RS FBER 10 SiR14^illtAL�y\ I I WFER TO 51RC�
I I I
W 4-
r —Y
!�MIN +fly PUN
0
9p•1lAIO RAIL YF 4%4 WU fALIIM ♦1'OP$F ULL
�NX 4'OrEU R VR TO 6TRIOEPOI MA%.4 OFEN
9
N
MGM
I a.o3Er _ 9
- ar OFM PAL
wuc A'oFEREG _ —
w4E I MS
RHEA TO CTION
A6 KIfCW
a - nDMS RA
- RHER TO•„ELfIOJ '
FW E To STRCTPAL F-yl• y-b� I
� kL Moe" —
SFi 22 T•-p
i Ip 33. .O
F 1
I 5
- b�•W �ht l ..
�4� h 3f' •., P }.C'31••
I �SECOND fLOOR
PLA
•-ram._,.
pf SNCA71 NAF1Mlf
Ira
AgApq'IEUd 50114
WEI
00_1 '
� A_.�p.' 2Am'SAI[f061tlAEY � r �
pFSIaD'PMEY _ fJ��jj3
SPXfAN11F W 1qi - .ii�l i1
' ' ts��
1
VERBATIM MINUTES OF APPEAL NUMBER 2384
• HEARD BY THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS ON MAY 9, 2002
Bames This is the property in question at 907 Mathews. Um this property is somewhat
different in that uh this block has a T shaped alley, and you can see that on the
site plan that was provided by the Applicant that is in your packet. There's an
alley that comes off of Locust Street and goes south through about half of the
block and then there's uh the alley that connects Mathews and Rein . . . uh well I
don't know if it goes all the way through Remington either, um it does. Yeah it
goes all the way through Mathews to Remington. So there's really two alleys
on this property, on this block and this lot fronts on both of those alleys. This is
the south side of the property and here's the alley that connects Mathews which
is out here to Remington uh to the west. Again this is that same alley looking
out towards Remington Street. Uh this lot goes back to the north-south alley at
the back of the property and the proposal is to, there's an existing (we'll have
some other slides too) but there's an existing uh garage type of building back
here in the comer. The proposal would be to, I believe remove that and
construct a new 800 square foot, two-story structure off of the alley, back in this
area. That uh lower level would consist and it would be back right about in
here. This is from the rear alley looking to the east, this is the back of the house
on Mathews Street. Um and you have pictures of the building that is proposed,
the lower level would be a garage and the upper level would be a uh one-
bedroom apartment. This is uh the back area of the lot. Over here is the
existing detached building in the corner. This is the alley along the side of the
property, along that south side. This is at the intersection of Locust and
Mathews. This is the house in question. This is the house at the comer, and
there's another house behind, behind it that fronts onto Locust, and then behind
that house is where you have the alley that goes from Locust out here, and
heads south, and Ts into the alley here, that goes from Mathews to Remington.
And uh it's off of this area of the alley that they would propose taking access
into this uh carriage house. And this is along the rear of the alley or uh the rear
alley um this is a detached garage building that's opposite where they're
proposing to construct then- other dwelling over here. Here you have where the
two alleys intersect. This is a uh, fairly large garage building that's on the side
alley directly south of the property in question. Again, the side alley, here's that
garage I just showed you a picture of. There's that garage I just showed you a
picture of, and there's a garage at the comer off of Mathews Street. So that
gives you a little flavor for the types of structures that are along the alley. The
uh, hmm . . .Okay the code requires that um, well first of all there's no, no
requirement in the code that says you can't have two homes on a lot. However,
there is a requirement that you have to have a sufficient size lot in order to
accommodate two homes. And that lot area requirement vanes from zone to
zone. In this particular zone, we require 5000 square feet of lot area per
principle building. Um when you have a dwelling unit that's considered a
• principle building, so the new structure in the back is a dwelling unit, therefore
ZBA May 9,2002
Page 2
you have a second principle building, and you need 5000 square feet of lot area
for that building, and 5000 square feet for the home that is already fronting on
Mathews, so therefore, the code requires a total of 10,000 square feet of lot
area. Uh the proposal here is that the lot has 8, 288 square feet, and they wish
to be able to construct a uh dwelling on the rear of the lot. What we might refer
to as an alley house. Um, brief background. The Code was amended in '96, uh
that's when the 5000 square foot requirement came into being, and that was a
direct result of an emergency ordinance that was adopted by City Coimcil in'93.
Um and that ordinance, the emergency ordinance, which is very unusual step
for Council to take came about because of a concern of the number of alley
dwelling units that were being constructed uh in uh a couple of neighborhoods.
And that emergency ordinance was adopted with the requirement that the Code
used to require 4500 square feet, the emergency ordinance increased it to 5500
square feet per principal building, meaning that it was almost impossible to find
lots in either the eastside neighborhood or the westside neighborhood large
enough to accommodate another single family home. Um, that emergency
ordinance required that City staff within one year come back uh after having
reviewed this situation and come up with design guidelines as well as address
all of the density issues uh and within one year come back to them uh with
specific recommendations. That one year request, turned into almost three
years, uh we, we did go back to them with various ordinances, the
neighborhoods were not pleased with those. City Council kept extending the
original one year date on the emergency ordinance uh because of uh all of the
controversy uh that was uh the neighbors continued to have with this. Um, so
three years later after considerable numbers of neighborhood meetings, public
outreach meetings, meetings with the Planning and Zoning Board,'and uh with
members of City Council uh at work sessions, and the hiring of a consultant uh
City Council finally adopted an ordinance that uh, uh contained some minimal
design standards of new construction whether it be additions to buildings or
brand new uh dwellings. In addition to dealing with the size of new alley
houses limiting them to 800 square feet total including the area of a garage.
Um, and in all other zones other than the three zones in the old neighborhoods
the NCL, NCM, and NCB uh we don't count garage as floor area. But in these
zones uh City Council was concerned about limiting the size of buildings so
they uh included in the ordinance a requirement that the garage also counts as
floor area in these three zones. Um, so we have the design standards, we had
size limitations, and we had lot area requirements as well in order to uh deal
with new construction and density issues. So that's a little brief explanation or
background explanation of uh how the Code got to where we are right now. I'd
be happy to answer any questions that the Board might have.
Remington So Peter one question, I've got at least for the record the . . .As you understand
it, the primary concern of City Council and all around alley houses was a
density issue?
Barnes They had uh concerns regarding size. They didn't, they wanted to put a size
limit, so that alleys houses were really subordinate. That they didn't, that they
weren't larger than other houses in the block. Um, so they put a size limit of
ZBA May 9,2002
Page 3
800 square feet, in addition, they were concerned that, they didn't want a lot of
. lots uh . . .they didn't want a lot of in-fill development occurring with additional
dwelling units. So, they uh, they certainly required that we first of all . . .Our
emergency ordinance did one thing, it increased the lot area requirement from
4500 square feet to 5500 square feet--4500 square feet per building requires a
9000 square foot lot. About 80% of the lots in the areas of concern, would have
met that requirement without a variance. So they thought that is not
appropriate, we want to allow in-fill dwellings, but we want a reasonable
number to occur and therefore change to the lot area requirement was
necessary.
Remington Thank you.
Barnes They changed it to 5500, which would have made it almost impossible. The
end result was they came down to 5000, which requires 10,000 square feet of
lot area. A lot of the lots are 9500 square feet in size, there are some instances
where you do find lots that are larger than that or you can combine portions of
lots to come up with your 10,000.
Remington I Thank you that clarifies it. Yeah, other questions for staff?
Lingle Yeah, I've got . . .In your report, in what you said was that the uh the emergency
ordinance was adopted in response to City Council concerns over those alley
houses. What, what prompted the concern, was it uh huge public out cry that
neighbors brought to Council or what was thatprocess?
Barnes That's what happened. Uh, and actually the Board dealt with a variance request
to remodel the house that started it all. Uh, it was an alley house on um,
• Whedbee and just a couple of months ago.
Lingle Whedbee and Laurel.
Barnes Yeah, right. And uh that was the house that started it. It was large, they didn't
like the looks of it um they, there was a letter writing campaign from that
neighborhood to City Council, then City Council became aware of other alley
houses that were being constructed. That was a popular thing to do in the early
'90s. We hadn't seen much of that for decades and then all of a sudden in the
early '90s we had whole areas that were being uh redeveloped with alley
construction. So in response to that initial one uh and the neighborhood
concerns uh Council looked at what was going on then became concerned with
design of the one that started it, the size of it, and when they looked at that one
along with um the other neighborhoods that we had, at least half of all the
blocks being developed with alley structures, they were concerned about the
density changing the character of those neighborhoods.
Remington Any other questions for staffs So, Peter I've got one more. As I understand it
then this particular property, even under the pre-1993, standard would have
needed a variance is that correct?
Barnes That's correct because uh prior to the emergency ordinance 4500 square feet per
principle building would have been allowed, and this lot would have been short
of the 9000 that would have been needed for a second building.
Remington Any other questions for staff? Thank you. Would the Applicant please come
forward. State your name and address for the record, please. You can add any
• additional comments you would like.
ZBA May 9,2002
Page 4
Torgerson Yes,thank you. My name is Mikal Torgerson. I'm with MTA Architects at 223
North College. I appreciate the opportunity to come before you today. I would
like to go through uh some of the situations that I think are unique to our site
and some of the considerations unique to the architecture that we're proposing,
that I think will make this an appropriate design. Um, first of all, as Peter
mentioned, uh our site is right here. We're at the T of uh unique alley
arrangement--a T alley arrangement. And so it's sort of a comer lot at the front
with the alley, and that actually the back is sort of a comer with an alley too--
sort of a unique situation. Uh, the other reason that I felt that this was
appropriate in this particular block is that a lot of these other . . .in terms of the
density, this is consistent with almost everything else in the block. As you can
see this lot here, which is exactly the same size as our proposed lot has been
divided and there are two full-size, fully occupied homes there. Nothing like an
alley house, those are really full-size homes. Um, this building here is a duplex,
and I believe there's another duplex on the side of this block as well. So in
terms of the density and the number of units um on a lot this is quite consistent
with a lot of what the other buildings on the block. The other issue is that of a
principle building, as Peter described it. I, I agree with the concerns that people
had about alley houses and actually I'm not a big fan of some of the alley houses
that have been built in Fort Collins. Primarily because they are truly a house
behind a house, you know, especially in this situation we have two full size
homes on a lot of equal size. I look at this as sort of a less than principle
building. It's, in architecture it's designed to look like a garage. It's intentionally
not a full extruded two-story building where you proportioned it to be consistent
with other garages in the vicinity. In fact, the size walls are 12 feet and I think
almost half of the garages along these alleys have 12 foot eaves that one there
does. This one does, there's a couple of others in here. So architecturally, I
think its consistent with the garages and wouldn't appear to be the house behind
a house or principle dwelling behind a principle dwelling. The intention is that
this would be sort of a studio that is really subservient to this existing structure
up front. So I view it more as a carriage house than an alley house. The other
thing architecturally is that we've uh made the primary dwelling up above the
garage and they have a small deck area above a carport. The thinking there was
that that would . . .there was some concern I think it was '96 or '93 when there
was concern about alley houses. If you started putting people back in the alley,
that maybe their couch ends up down here, and they're starting a barbecue in
the alley, and, and that's an unintended use in an alley. The thought here is that
you bring people up into the residence and that this serves as sort of their little
yard, the same way that an apartment might have a deck. And um, that's to
keep that unintended impact on the alley from occurring. We intentionally used
Old Town architecture. Um,we're trying to blend this in to the extent we can in
this historic neighborhood to make this look like it might be a historic carriage
house there. The unit is primarily tucked up within the roof um again to keep
those sidewalls small and to keep it from looking like a house behind a house:
The um, we're providing three covered off-street parking spaces. Another
concern we heard about alley houses is that, if you start putting additional
ZBA May 9,2002
Page 5
people in here, then their cars become a concern. At present, as you saw in the
pictures, this home parks on the street and there is no off-street parking. We're
providing three new off-street covered parking spaces, and that should be more
than sufficient to satisfy not only this dwelling unit, but also to take whatever
parking is occurring for this resident on the street out, and put it in covered
parking spaces. So that we view is sort of an improvement to an existing
problem in the neighborhood. The other thing that we did was we're accessing
the house, the proposed alley house the stairs, I'll turn this around, are on the
back of the unit. They are not on the alley side. Again, this is to keep whatever
activity is generated by this within the house and yard proper and not start
generating activity, new activity in the alley space. So the stair up to the unit is
tucked behind the carriage house. The idea that somebody coming in on a
bicycle or pedestrian could come and visit the house without going down the
alley and creating new traffic back there. Um again, I think the density is
consistent with the rest of the block, so that the impact of that I think is
appropriate within this zone district. The other thing we're doing is there is an
existing garage here that's really in poor shape--it's a one car garage. And it's
literally up against both property lines and within a view triangle in the alley.
Removing this building is going to help visibility back here and although people
aren't going fast through the alley, it does improve safety a bit by opening up
what's right now a blocked view triangle. The other point I wanted to make and
this kind of goes back to what you were discussing with the balconies
overlooking peoples backyards and the issue of privacy. We've intentionally
sited this deck area on this side and setback quite a ways from the property line.
This is looking at what, the southern uh part of this alley is essentially a wall of
garages and privacy fences starting down here, this is a garage with a privacy
fence that comes to another garage with a privacy fence that continues around a
bunch of parking areas. Then a three-car garage with a privacy fence, a storage
building. A very tall, ugly garage. And a lot of drive-in parking with a garage
right on the property lines. The reason I'm bringing that up is that the impact,
that the impact this might have is really quite mitigated by this wall of garages
and wall of privacy fences, and it's setback so far that I think that, that really
wouldn't have much of an impact on those people's private areas. And then
looking this way, of course, there's very large garage here that would mitigate
any impact there. Um, we're also setting this back from the alley uh 19 feet, I
believe it is. The idea there is that in the off chance that we had additional cars
other than the three spaces that we're providing, they could park behind these,
this area and not obstruct the alley in any way. That also sort of mitigates the
impact to any surrounding neighbors because we're setting it farther back than
any of the existing garages. The other point I'd like to make is that the house
up front is relatively small house. It's a 940 square foot foot-print, and what
we're proposing behind it is only a 400 square foot foot-print, and so while there
is some concern about this house behind a house, what we're really proposing is
very small house behind a very small house. And so if you look at it compared
to the neighbors houses for example, they've put quite a bit of living space on
what is the same size lot. And I think the impact of what we're proposing is
ZBA May 9,2002
Page 6
going to be significantly less than that. The other point I wanted to make is that
we intend to, not only intend, we'd be required to pave the alley. These are
existing sort of sub-standard gravel alleys. We would pave the alley to our site
and that's probably going keep these people driving this direction, and only
driving by one house and another house other than their own. Um, so that the
impact on everyone else is going to be minimal. The likelihood of these people
deciding to drive down a longer gravel drive is, seems unlikely. So the impact
is kind of minimized to the neighbors. Along those lines though, if there was
some concern about what Peter brought up, Peter Barnes brought up the
possibility that that could be a concern how, how these people might be driving
by other peoples homes. We would be willing to consider re-orienting this
carriage house to this alley, so that they only drove in this way. Really only
impacting this house theses are again the garages and houses are significantly
farther back, so that's something we'd be willing to consider as maybe a
condition of approval. Um, I understand that Fort Collins needs to codify the
minimum lot size for additional dwelling units, um I actually agree with that
and as mentioned before I'm concerned about some of the huge house behind a
house that we've seen. I think that in light of fact that we're proposing what I
believe is uh an appropriate proportioning, and size unit in the back, that um it's
worth considering a variance for the lot size. And I don't think that this would
be an undue impact on the neighborhood. The other point I'd like to make is
that this is essentially an unsubsidized form of affordable housing in this student
area. And so being a fan of affordable housing I'd like you to consider that um
it is appropriate to build student housing, especially in light of the fact that CSU
doesn't seem to be keeping pace with their students. Um, near the um, um
university. I spoke with the owners of this property and this property--two
adjacent properties about this proposal and unfortunately he wasn't able to make
it here today. Um, he's just gotten back from an extended vacation, but he
wanted me to express to you that he had no concerns whatsoever about this, and
was supportive. And um, perhaps if you wanted to verify that uh appropriate
condition of approval would be that I get some letters to that effect, and I could
certainly do that. Um I, I'd like to also mention that I think it's appropriate to
increase density near services that CSU and the transit system, seems like the
place to do it. I feel that we're adequately addressing the impacts of parking,
stormwater will be addressed with stormwater, and well be required to comply
with them as part of our approval process. We're paving the alley and
improving that situation, and I think we have compatible architecture so I would
urge your support. I also have with me the owner of the property, Derek
Vandersluys. We had several other property owners in the area that were
wanting to speak in support of the project, but had to leave. I think we still
=1qVc
ere,um that would like to speak to it as well.
gRemin
o that art in just a second.
would like to turn it over to the owner.
an on cause, cause, lets see if there's any uestions.
ions for . . . eah?
ZBA May 9, 2002
Page 7
Lingle In your letter Mice, when you say that uh this is a designated affordable
• housing unit, is that somehow built into your, how's that going to be?
Torgerson Urn . . .
Lingle Classified that it would be an affordable housing unit as opposed to . . .
Torgerson That might be an appropriate condition approval. It, it by designated affordable
means that it would be at the 80% AMI criteria that is in the code. There hasn't
been any covenant or anything in place because we haven't gotten to that point.
Um,but that might be an appropriate condition.
Lingle The intent is that it is a rental unit?
Torgerson Yes.
Lingle Not a for sale 80%AMI?
Torgerson Yes, that's correct.
Lingle Okay.
Remington Any other questions for the Applicant?
Donahue Would the stair be located on the interior of the property or the exterior? The
model is showing a different um indication than the . . .
Torgerson Yeah.
Donahue Than the drawings do. I just want to clarify that.
Torgerson It would be on the interior. This model was actually developed for another
project ironically the project that the previous gentleman was referring to in
Rigden Farm, inaccurately actually. We've got the five foot setback that he was
describing for garages along the property lines and this was a model that was
constructed for that project, but it's exactly the same but mirrored in this
situation.
Remington We're all thankful the stairs aren't on the easements, so . . .um
Torgerson Actually for the record we are not encroaching into the easement out there.
Remington Yeah, I know. One other question I've got. The lot next to that, I don't know if
this is for you or for Peter, do we know what the square footage of that lot is
and when was that divided? Do we know is that the same square footage as
this?
Shannon The one on Locust?
Remington The one, yeah, yeah that lot. It's actually been divided, is that, it looks like
according to the drawings it's about the same square footage is that the case?
As far as we know?
Banes It's uh real close to that.
Remington Real close.
Barnes Urn
Remington Do we know when that was divided?
Barnes A long time ago. And as you've seen in other instances uh a lot of times the
established character uh in these old neighborhoods on comer lots is that a long
time ago they, they had these long lots and they split off the back portion and
built another house in the back facing that side street. So this is not an
uncommon situation that you find on corner lots uh where the established
character is to have the original platted lot uh having, at some point in history,
been replatted into two with a house in the back facing the other street. I don't
. know exactly when that lot split occurred.
ZBA May 9,2002
Page 8
F
Would it be safe to sa thou it occurred rior to 1993?
Yes.
O So these two would be nonconformin ? I would assume to be 5000 s uare foot.
That's ri t the would be nonconformin with res ect to the lot area Any other questions? Okay at this point um, is there anyone in the audience in
favor of the appeal. If you'd come forward and state your name and address for
the record and then any additional commentsyou'd like to add.
Way My name is Ben Way, I'm at 1812 Hull Street in Fort Collins. Uh the reason
I'm in favor of this is from my, I'm here unofficially but I work for a uh national
land protection organization, that protects farm and ranch land across the
country. And this, while this particular case is obviously not going to have a
huge impact on our greater mission, I think it addresses a principle in that for
every reasonable situation where you can increase the density or approve an in-
fill situation like this, it's one less lot that's gonna have to be converted and
contribute to the spatial sprawl we're all confronting and viewing with here in
Fort Collins, which I'm sure as you know is of concern to the majority of
citizens. So it's just from that perspective that in each case where you can just
reduce the amount of new acreage that it has to be converted into residential
units, I think is worth factoring into the equation of your deliberations. I just
wanted to point that out. It also, as they had pointed out, it also um in terms of
the costs associated with new residential development by being able to increase
density into an already serviced urban area you are essentially spreading the
costs of that. The City or County has to provide to residential dwellers over a
larger population and increase, excuse me, decreasing additional costs that
would be associated with servicing new growth areas. It was just from that sort
of principle that I'm in favor of this particular case.
Remington Okay any questions at this time?
Breth Yes, does that theory really hold true, I, even though you're not, the
displacement is not the same. You've got student housing versus family
housing on another lot somewhere else.
Way When you ay theory,which uh . . .
Breth The theory that you're in favor of this because more density on existing lots, in
theory, means there might be one less lot developed out in the urban sprawl
somewhere.
Way Uh-huh.
Breth But you're not comparing apples to apples. You're talking about student
housing versus family housing.
Way I don't think it matters so much whether it's a student or a family. Those people
still require services. And in terms of sewage, safety, fire, all of the public
services that a City and County provide by putting people into existing service
areasyou're spreading those costs.
Breth Well, I understand about the existing service areas, but you're not gonna put a
family of five on an in-fill lot.
Way No, that's fair enough, but you'd still, there's a lot of people, lot of individuals
on new lots as well. I think principle is valid. Um
ZBA May 9, 2002
Page 9
Breth Okay.
Remington Any otherquestions? Thank you.
Way Thank you.
Remington Is there anyone else in the audience in favor of this appeal? If you'd state your
name and address, and then any other continents you'd like to make.
Vandersluys I'm Derrick Vandersluys, 1806 Hull Street, I am the owner of this property. Uh,
I'm a real estate agent in Fort Collins. Um, part of the, the thinking behind this
is that CSU is increase, increasing their enrollment, they are not providing more
dorms. Um, given the location of this property it is basically gonna be a college
rental, but the positive to this is that I think it would decrease traffic and
pollution by having the students close enough that they could walk versus
driving in from surrounding areas. It would keep the student, I mean, it would
help to decrease the students from moving into the other suburban areas which
is a big issue right now where people, family-oriented places don't want
students living right beside them. Increasing the density around the college is in
my opinion the correct way to go.
Remington Any questions for him? Thank you.
Vandersluys Thank you.
Remington For the record is there anyone else in the audience in favor of this appeal?
Seeing none. Anyone opposed? Seeing none Board discussion.
Lingle Steve, I've got another question of Peter. Uh, just to help me understand the
requirement, is that the unit could not be larger than 800 square feet, that
includes the garage square footage?
Barnes That's correct.
Lingle Okay, now if this were a two-car garage and a car port with a workshop for the
primary dwelling or a studio or whatever else it might be um 800 square feet,
the same mass and bulk as what's being proposed. That would not require a
variance and would be acceptable?
Barnes Right, the size is not an issue in this case, it's the lot area. That's the standard
that's being requested for a variance which deals with uh the addition of
dwellings wherein you have additional trips and things of that nature,
workshops and garages are supposed to be for the use and enjoyment of the
residence of the main principle building--main house on the property as
opposed to two distinct things. So . . .
Lingle But what's triggering this? Is the fact that it's a separate dwelling unit not the
mass and bulk of the . . .see what I mean? That while . . .
Barnes Right.
Lingle They could be exactly equal the assumption behind the policy is that because
it's a separate dwelling it's gonna have it's own car or cars and its own traffic
trips and all those kinds of things.
Barnes That's correct. For instance, someone may have an existing 800 square foot
detached garage that's been there for 50 years and they come in and apply for a
permit to convert that garage to a dwelling unit, even though the building is
already there they would need to meet the lot area requirement or Oct a variance
because of the change in use. So it's the use that trips uh the activities that
occur there, no longer have anything to do with the family uh the household that
ZBA May 9,2002
Page 10
occupies the main house.
Lin le Uh huh, okay. Thank you.
Remington Any other Board comments? I guess I'll share some of my thoughts. I think
um, I think the arguments that have been made, I think that it certainly um is a
well thought out design. I think it um certainly trying to address some of the
concerns that have existed around alley houses or carriage house or whatever
we want to call 'em. I think the arguments about um whether we allow in-fill or
don't allow in-fill are interesting. The concern I've got though is it's not I don't
drink it's this Board's role to set policy in those areas and what I am concerned
about is the standard that's, that exists, exists to prevent this situation. Um, and
even prior to 1993 this would have needed a variance when City Council acted
in 1993 because of the concern about the . . .this wouldn't have complied even
at that point, so I'm, I'm concerned. I think the City Council and needs to make
some policy decisions around whether they're going to allow this, but I'm
frankly kind of concerned as to the equal to or better than standard um whether
this meets that.
Donahue I have a question for Peter. The 5000 square foot lot area requirement what is
the intent and the spirit of the code behind that? Is that for preserving open
space, was it implemented primarily to prevent increasing density, what is the
intent behind that?
Barnes In this case throughout all of those three years that transpired between the
B
emergency ordinance and the adoption of the final ordinance that ended up with
the 5000 square foot limit. The uh idea of preservation of open space really
wasn't uh didn't enter into the thinking. It dealt with somehow preserving the
existing quality of life in those neighborhoods, uh character of those
neighborhoods, as they were already in place and being very careful about alley
creep. Um, and so the intent of the 5000 standard is to limit the number of
potential new dwellings that could be constructed. Uh, staff had to prepare uh
we had to go out and do surveys of how many lots there were in the eastside
neighborhood and the westside neighborhood um the number of lots in each of
those areas . . .because the eastside neighborhood and the westside
neighborhood came about as a result of a neighborhood plan that in itself was
the result of years and years of um neighborhood involvement in a City
planning process. Um, and we had to go and do an inventory of the square
footage of the lots in all of those areas as to how many lots had 9000 square feet
at least, which would have met the original requirement of 4500 square feet per
building. How many had at least 11000 square feet, which would have uh met
the threshold for the 5500 square foot emergency ordinance and then we
decided to look at how many lots had 10000 square feet of lot area for a
proposed 5000 square foot. So we gave all those results to City Council and
said okay if you go back to the 4500 square foot, here's how many, here's what
percentage of all of the lots can accommodate another house. If you go to 5500
square foot,which is 11000 square foot for an alley house,this is the percentage
of lots that can accommodate another alley house. And if you go with 5000
square foot, this is the percentage. So they had thesecomparison tables um and
with uh, uh all of the neighborhood in ut and Council um thought that was put
ZBA May 9, 2002
Page 11
into they determined that 5000 gave them the right mix. Um because they are
• very concerned about alley creep--going down the alley. Once you get away
from the streets, we have the comer lot situations already where you have, it's
very common to have two lots uh two houses, that not particularly of concern.
But they were more concerned about when you start uh allowing uh through,
through smaller lot size requirements when you start allowing the potential for
more and more lots to be uh redeveloped with in-fill development. They felt
that would be uh changing the quality of life in those neighborhoods, and uh
they were concerned about preserving that quality of life and the character. The
character yeah well there some alley houses that were minimal amounts, and
they were concerned about what was happening. So also they were concerned
about preserving the character of the neighborhood which was mostly blocks
devoid of interior alley houses, so the intent, I think, I think can so say quite uh
quite confidently was just really dealing with limiting the munber of new alley
house construction.
Remington Peter is the, is that situation with uh, with two, with property adjoining two
alleys how unique is that situation?
Barnes It's fairly unique. I don't believe there are too many blocks that have that type
of alley(tape turns over) the block right to the north on the other side of Locust
is similar.
Remington But generally in that part of town it's a unique feature.
Barnes I think so.
Remington Discussion or questions.
• Lingle Yeah um, I'd like to hear some other comments from the Board, but I'm really
(tape cuts out) finding a way through either a hardship or an equal to or better
than position to be able to approve it. That's why I'd like to hear what some
other people think.
Breth Well um, I'm all for affordable housing. We can't have enough affordable
housing as far as I'm concerned, but um how we go about it is a total different
issue. How we go about obtaining it. I think the uh applicant has gone to great
pains to address a lot of issues of the architectural style is where it needs to be
albeit uh although that was an accident, I mean it was designed for something
else, but it can definitely fit in that neighborhood. Um, I think the side
orientation is proper whether it's tamed to face the other alley or not--it's
immaterial. But I do believe we have a responsibility to uphold the code as it
was adopted back in 1996. Um, and the codes are there to protect the public
good, the detriment to the public good and, and uh I think um personally I just
happen to think that it's not our job to override that uh. It's not our job to
increase density where density doesn't belong, is what I'm trying to say. Um, if
this were one big lot, let's say, one big, if this lot and the comer lot were one big
lot, and they wanted to come in and do more dense housing on there with a
brand new plan if, if, if the whole lot, if both lots were vacant then I would
certainly be in favor of taking a look at that as in way of increasing density and
way of providing affordable housing, but I don't think, I just don't think it's
being accomplished here. In this, in the present way it's been proposed.
. Remington Any other comments?
ZBA May 9,2002
Page 12
Barnes Steve,I think the A licant would like to address the Board.
Rem' on Oka , sure come on u .
Torgerson Thank you, I wanted to answer a question that you rightly prop7UM,
how does this address the standard equally well or better thneglected to say that in my presentation. I actually belieaddresses than, uh than compliance would. That standard say
promote the standard of which the variance is requested equally well or better
than a proposal which complied with that. So when you look at the purpose
statement, which is what we're supposed to be promoting. The purpose
statement for that section of the code says it's intended to preserve the character
of the area that have a predominance of developed single family, low to
medium density and multi-family housing which have been uh given this
designation in accordance with a sub-area plan. And then when you look at the
sub-area plan, which is the eastside neighborhood plan, this particular area was
in a um survey done as part of the eastside neighborhood plan was designated as
multi-family, not single family. And so this clearly promotes that sub-area plan
better than compliance would because it's in total agreement with the survey
that was done as part of that sub-area plan. So I'm really not, I don't believe I'm
stretching the code in that respect. And then the second part of that is that it
needs not to impair the intent or purposes of the Land Use Code, and clearly
providing affordable housing in Fort Collins is only promoting the purposes of
the Land Use Code, and I can cite multiple sections that agree with that. So I
didn't choose that section just because a hardship didn't fit or something. I
really truly believe that this is promoting that intent and purposes of that
section.
Remington Okay, so help me with that. In terms of if, if it were to comply with the
standard then there would not be um a living unit built. So,how does building a
living unit promote that standard equally well or better would,help me with that
Pm not . . .
Torgerson Again, if you're looking at that sub-area plan it, it in a survey designated this as
a multi-family area. So single family in a multi-family area would be less
com liant with that sub-area.
Remin on What,what surve are ou refernn to?
Tor erson The eastside neighborhood plan and that is the sub-area Ian.
Barnes Well let me uh just address something. The NCM zoning district gregulatithat were adopted implemented the neighborhood plan--thneighborhood plan. And in order to implement it, certainly the
allows uh multi-family up to four-plexes. It also allows single-family dwellings
too, so uh I don't necessarily agree that it's appropriate to say that the intent of
the sub-area plan is to uh not allow single-family or encourage single-family.
Um . . .
Torgerson If I could Peter, what I was referring to wasn't just the general standard. It was
the specific site. This actual lot was designated as multi-family in the eastside
nei-hborhood Ian.
Games And that could be converted to a duplex, tri-plex, or afour-plex--the existing
buildin on the front of the lot. That lot would allow that, and ou could still do
ZBA May 9, 2002
Page 13
that even if the Board grants a variance to allow the single-fancily home um the
uh unless they put some conditions on it the existing single-family home on the
front could be converted to uh duplex,tri-plex, or a four- lex. Um
Torgerson So I guess the point I was making is that, that arrangement is more in keeping
um preserving the character of the area if we, if we build a small unit like this
and it's compatible with the neighborhood. That's preserving the character
better than I contend than building a three- lex.
Remington Four-plex, okay I understand your argument. Thank you.
Torgerson Thank you.
Shannon If a duplex were made, Peter you mentioned converting the house, could you
put an addition on and make that a duplex? Or is it, do we, would we then have
the sameproblem?
Barnes The lot area would be all right because the lot area requirement is per principle
building. However if you convert that building to another use uh and it requires
exterior alterations then that has to go to the Planning and Zoning Board
through a public hearing. Um not necessarily for any variances um, but just
through the public hearing process. It's allowed if they met all the setbacks and
provided the parking and stuff like that they would meet, excuse me, they
would meet the standards for a duplex or what not.
Eckman But if they cleared the lot and started over, then that can be an administrative
review for what up to a four- lex.
Barnes When you say administrative . . .
Eckman Type one review, I'm looking at here.
Barnes Right. If they tore down all the buildings they could build a four-plex, and City
Council was fully aware of that when they adopted the Code in'96.
Shannon What would be the allowable square footage then? Of living units?
Barnes It's a 2 to 1 lot area to floor area ratio. The lot, the total square footage of the lot
has to be twice as large as the floor of all the buildings on the property.
Remington What, what is the floor area that's proposed. We have 800 feet here and I think
you mentioned the footprint on the front, but what's the square footage of the
building on the front--the totalsquare footage?
Torgerson I don't know the total square footage, but, but as Peter said it's a floor to, oh I'm
sorry it is a floor to area ratio, not a coverage. If the lower floor is um, 800
square feet or so, it's probably 13-1400 square feet above grade, and then it has
a basement. So I guess what I was saying is that, if you're looking at the highest
and best use of the property this sort of approach certainly preserves the
character of the neighborhood, and that is the purpose statement that I'm
arguing is better than or at least equal than. So I guess, it doesn't seem like
you're really legislating from the bench so much as you're just looking at a
specific situation and seeing that it's either equal to or better than that purposed
statement or not.
Remington AG other Board discussion? Thank you.
Lingle Well for, me at least, that seems to change things a little bit. That if, if up to a
four-plex were to be allowed with a total building area of 4100 square feet, I
guess I'm not, and Peter you said that the City Council was aware of that at the
time.
ZBA May 9,2002
Page 14
Barnes Yes they were because if you go with that thought every single house in the
NCM zone could be converted to a four-plex and then if you were to grant this
variance they could also have another house in the back. So now I think I'm
going to have to refer to City Plan and the Applicant did cite some references to
City Plan,which is the City's comprehensive plan. And our Land Use Code, the
zoning code, implements the principles and policies found in City Plan. So the
Applicant cited some, but Ion gonna cite some different ones. Uh, this is uh,
taken out of the chapter in City Plan on the City structure plan. It's titled,
"Choices made by the City Structure Plan" and it talks about in-fill
development. "Most of the City's new housing will be built in areas that are
currently undeveloped however, some new housing will also be built in existing
neighborhoods some homes will be built on lots that are currently vacant. Some
will be second homes added to lots that are large enough to accommodate an
additional housing unit or granny flat above a garage." Again, the keyword
there is you can add those to lots that are large enough. Then you have other
sections on, this is in the chapter on principles and policies in the chapter on
existing neighborhoods the principle is "most existing residential developments
will remain largely unaffected by the City Plan Principles and Policies," and
then Policy 1.1 dealing with that principle states that "no significant changes to
the character of existing residential developments will be initiated by City Plan,
changes if any will be carefully planned and will result from initiative by
residents or from a specific sub-area plan prepared in collaboration with
residents." And then it goes on to say in that same, in another policy regarding
that same principle on in-fill development. "Forms of potential infill
development include small detached dwellings added to lots of sufficient size
with existing houses, for example alley houses." In other words a type of in-fill
development is a small detached dwelling that you're gonna add to a lot where
there's an existin buildingon it when the lot is of sufficient size.
Remington So Peter, can I ask a question on that? So in that situation if, if this were a
10,000 square foot lot in that location, in that zone they could put, if I
understand it correctly, they could put a four-plex on the farther property and
still have 800 s uare foot
Barnes No. Uh, they need 5000 square feet of lot area for every single-family and
du lex.
Remin on Oka .
Barnes You need 6000 square feet of lot area for a tri-plex or four-plex. So they need
11.000 square feet of lot area to have a four- lex and a new house.
Remin on So at 10.000 square feet, they could have a du lex and a house, right?
Barnes That's correct. And that's on a lot of sufficient size as determined by the City
Council.
Remington I guess what I'm trying to understand is based on the comments by the uh, uh
the Applicant's architect if, if in terms of the standard and what's equal to or
better than I'm trying to decide, is, is a four-plex on that property meeting the
standard better than this situation if, if this situation were approved with a
condition um that you could not put a duplex, tri-plex, or four-plex on the front.
U , just in m own mind, I'm in to decide if this meets that equal to or
m ,
ZBA May 9, 2002
Page 15
which I thinks falling under your comments, I'm just trying to uh . . .
. Lingle Or uh or like you said a duplex and a single family house, which is essentially
three units on a 10,000 square foot lot versus the proposal of two units on a
8800 square feet.
Barnes That's right and I believe what City Council said was that if you have 10,000
square feet of lot area it's appropriate to have a duplex and a single-family
home. And if you have 11,000 square feet of lot area I think they said it's
appropriate to have a four-plex and a single-family home.
Breth But they say then . . .
Barnes That was the result of those three years of comparative tables and percentages
of lots that could accommodate this and that and everything.
Breth But they say you can only have one dwelling on a 5,000 square foot lot.
Barnes Or a duplex.
Breth Or a duplex on a 5,000 square foot lot. So don't you essentially have a detached
duplex here on an 8,200 square foot lot?
Barnes No you have, you have the same number of dwelling units.
Breth But they're not attached.
Barnes That's right.
Breth So . . .
Barnes Well nowyou're getting into policy issues, I think again.
Breth Well . . .
Donahue If these were attached as a duplex it would be uh one massive building. Create
more bulk where this is 'smaller scale more in character with the neighborhood.
. Breth If you had proper parking for that front house you'd still have more mass. I
mean enclosed parking, doesn't have a garage.
Donahue True.
Remington Any other Board discussion.
Shannon I think we have a real quandary here in that, accept that it I believe this is equal
to or better alternative of a duplex and a single-family. I really don't see where
that makes a policy change if this is superior.
Remington I think from what Peter said a duplex and a single-family detached unit would
not be allowed on this lot. The choice is you could have a duplex, tri-plex, or
four- lex on this lot. Or situation with two single-family units.
Breth Except that it, it, it that complies. This doesn't comply. That complies.
Remington Right, I think that's what I'm saying the question is this equal to or better than
something that complies which might be a four- lex.
Breth There's a bigger problem here than equal to or better than. This could be better
than having a big massive building, butyou're gonna open the flood gates here.
Remington Unless there's something unique with the alley configuration or something.
Breth Well you better find something unique about it because you . . .
Shannon How many, Peter how many properties are zoned in this way that would led to
additional alley house, the alley creep?
Bames Let's see if I can find the table. How many are zoned in this to do what?
Shannon In, in the matter that it could be a duplex, or tri-plex, or a four-plex on this size
lot. How many other properties are zoned in this manner?
ZBA May 9,2002
Page 16
Barnes Well every lot in the NCM or the NCB zoning district is zoned to allow multi-
family up to four- lex buildings.
Shannon On what size lot?
Barnes On a uh 5,000 square foot lot in the NCM for a single-family or duplex, 6,000
square foot lot in the NCM for tri-plex and four-plex, and in the NCB it's 5000
square foot for any type of residential building up to four-plexes. So all the
NCM and NCB lots that have at least 5000 square feet are going to allow a
duplex.
Remington So, Peter. . .
Barnes minimum, some in those in the NCB will also allow up to a four- lex.
Remington So Peter, in 1993 when this issue came to a head and, and, and in my mind in
1993 there was a pretty clear policy set. But when that came to a head did the
same condition exists in terms of being able to have a duplex, or tri-plex, on the
front of the property and a detached alley house or is that situation been created
since 1993?
Barnes Since 1993 to do what?
Remington Well what, what I'm trying to get at is in my mind this debate about if this was
approved with a condition that the front unit had to stay a single living unit. I'm
trying to decide if that's equal to or better than um a situation that complies,
which potentially could be this duplex, tri-plex, or four-plex. And I'm
wondering if that same condition existed prior to 1993. In other words, prior to
1993 on 4500 square feet or 5000 square could I have built a duplex or tri-plex
and still built . . .
Barnes No. You would have needed 9000 square feet to build a duplex and a single-
family.
Remin on But I, okay. I could of,I could of. . .
Barnes What happened is that got changed from 9000 square foot prior to '93 to 10,000
s uate feet after'96.
Remington I guess what I'm trying, maybe, let me try a different way to ask this then. Prior
to 1993 with 9000 square feet, I could have built a duplex on the front and a
single living unit on the back.
Barnes That's right.
Remington Or with whatever the numbers were back then with 10,000 square feet I could
have a tri-plex in uh,whatever the numbers were, but okay. Cause in my mind,
in 1993, City Council made a clear statement about, in my mind, I'm trying to
have this debate about whether this is equal to or better, and I guess what I'm
hearing is in 1993 they kind of had that debate, if it was allowed.
Torgerson In 1993 we were under the LDGS, which wasn't a prescriptive land use code as
we are now. That change happened in '96, I think it was. So you could have
put, theoretically you could put anything there in the front it was just a matter of
meeting certain criteria.
Barnes Well, in 1996 when they finally adopted this ordinance they were so concerned
about a PUD being used to abuse this that they did something very unusual in
that between first and second reading of that 1996 ordinance uh someone raised
the issue "well gee through a PUD they could vary all this stuff." Uh, a
provision was added to the ordinance between first and second reading making
ZBA May 9, 2002
Page ]7
it very clear that you could not vary this requirements through a PUD.
Remington Any other Board discussion? Well, then I think we probably need a motion
either. . .
Barnes I'll just go ahead and just to clarify I'll read that from the ordinance. It says
development of areas in the NCM district as a planned unit, development plan,
as defined process and approved according to Section 29-526 may not vary the
requirements of this subdivision. And that was put in between first and second
reading.
Remington I think we need a motion for it or a motion against it, or a motion with
conditions. If somebody wants to uh . . . any brave souls?
Stockover Well, it's my opinion, that a lot more thought went into the ordinances than
what we've been allowed to digest in the last week that we've had this
information. And it's my feeling that even though there are two alleys that
really doesn't make it unique, it just makes the number of alley footage longer
than anybody else has, but doesn't really make it unique in my mind. Um, and
I'm usually pretty much for anything (for the record) but this is new
construction, it is, I mean we're not correcting a small problem. It is new
construction, it's clearly against what the square footage requirements are. So I
think I would be opposed to it. I just clear cut rules that are, we're trying to get
around--clear cut square footage rules. Um so I would make a motion to deny
appeal 2384 for the lack of any hardship findings.
Eckman I don't think they were approaching the hardship, it was the equal to or better
than.
Stockover For the lack um . . .I don't find that it is equal to or better than the guidelines.
Remington Is there a second?
Breth That it is a detriment to the public good.
Stockover I don't think that we have to find that, do we?
Eckman You don't have to find that it is detrimental if you're not going to approve it,but
in order to approve a variance you have to find that it's not detrimental and that
it also fits one of those other criteria either the hardship or the equal to or better
than. And I think the Applicant approached the, the later as their argument and
not, not the former.
Stockover I don't think it's detrimental. I just don't think it's better than.
Breth Well you don't have to.
Remington That's not part of your motion.
Stockover No.
Remington Okay is there a second?
Breth I second.
Remington Anymore discussion?
Lingle Steve,
Remington Yeah.
Lingle For me I think it's gonna come down to the fact that this lot would have been
non-complying prior to 1993. It still would have required a variance prior to
that and the City Council acted through that three year period to actually reduce
the square footage of or increase the requirement of square footage of the lot
further, and so for, to me that policy you know this lot is moving further away
ZBA May 9,2002
Page 18
from compliance that it would have been in 1993. So I would, I guess I would
tend to agree that it uh that we shouldn't approve it.
Remington I guess Im kind of on the same lines. Where I'm concerned is I think that this
gets in the area of starting to make policy and I think that the Applicant has the
option of appealing this to City Council which um, it, it might be appropriate to
do and let City Council make a decision on this one. I think they've taken a lot
of design things into consideration, etc. And there is an argument about
duplexes and all in the front, but for me I'm just nervous we're getting into the
area of setting a policy rather than variances to the codes. Any other
discussion? Okay. Rollcall,please.
Soriano Breth
Breth Yes.
Soriano Donahue.
Donahue Yes.
Soriano Remington
Remington Yes.
Soriano Shannon
Shannon tNo.
Soriano Stockover
Stockover Yes.
Soriano Lingle
Lingle Yes.
Remington Appeal 2384 has been denied.
Barnes I did hear some boardmembers talk about that uh personally you weren't in
favor of the policy um Mikal is a member of the Planning and Zoning Board um
so perhaps this is something that um all the Boards should be instructing staff to
take a look at is this whole policy and then working with City Council regarding
it. Um I don't know if the P&Z Board's work plan includes this yet or not. Do
you know where they stand on that? I mean as far as timing?
Torgerson I don't recall what the ranking is in terms of our work plan, but one of the issues
we have on our work plan is addressing alley houses and carriage houses.
Barnes And I can see where that is too, and uh see about getting the discussion started.
I personally don't have uh a problem with opening up the policy thing either
because in certain instances it, it uh may require looking into again. Um but uh,
uh I hear from some of the boardmembers that didn't particularly have a
problem with an alley house when the density is allowed anyway and they meet
certain design standards. Um and uh I know at least one member of the P&Z
Board feels the same.
Torgerson And for what it's worth, I, I agree with the concern that came up and in '96 or
'93, but it was related more to you know these extruded two-story boxes that
you see back there. A lot of it boils down to the details unfortunately and that's
why I would necessarily favor upping the lot size. I think they should be looked
at individually and scrutinized at this level, not so much just moseying in and
sa 'nI well I can do it.
Barnes And maybe there's a different climate out there. I know adopting design
standards to minutely look at the design of the whole site and the building uh
ZBA May 9, 2002
Page 19
was contemplated and we came up with one ordinance with all of these we had,
I don't know thirty pages of design standards, and that really got the neighbors
upset. Uh they didn't want that much government intrusion. That's why this,
part of why this emergency ordinance kept getting extended year after year.
Um and so they pared down the design standards to some just very essential
ones on roof pitch, the size of the building, but they coupled it with the lot area
requirement. So they had the concern about both and I don't know what the
climate is now days, but uh, uh a discussion of that you know might be
something that we might want to talk about.
Remington I appreciate the appeal this morning. I think their argument of you know, I
think it's an interesting argument about what's, what's better a four-plex on this
lot or these two separate units, and I think that's a reasonable argument that they
ought to have. That's my opinion.
Donahue Increase density and provide affordable housing, I'm all for that.
Remington I think it's an interesting argument.
Tor erson Well I appreciate you hearing it.
Remington Okay thanks.
Meeting adjourned at 11:51 a.m.
Steve Remington, Chairperson Peter Barnes, Zoning Administrator